Judgment.- Though I would be most reluctant to interfere with an acquittal, and the authorities are explicit to the effect that interference with an acquittal would be justified only for substantial and compelling reasons evident from the record, the present case appears to be one in which interference is essential in the interests of justice, for, the acquittal of the respondent by the learned District Magistrate of Kumbakonarn, in appeal with regard to an alleged offence under section 430, Indian Penal Code, is contrary to what the learned District Magistrate has himself indicated earlier in the judgment as confirming the findings of the learned Sub-Magistrate of Kumbakonarn. Upon those finding, assuming that they are decisively established, as I have to assume with regard to concurrent findings upon a simple question of fact by the two Courts below, it is clear that the learned District Magistrate has erred in applying the relevant principles of law. There were only two ingredients to be established in this case. Firstly, the complainant had to establish that there was a channel between R.S. No. 240 and R.S. No. 241/1 through which the complainant is entitled to take water for the irrigation of his own land R. S. No. 240. Secondly, the complainant had to establish that the accused (respondent) obstructed the water flowing through this channel, with an inferable intention to cause wrongful loss, and thereby committed an offence under section 430, Indian Penal Code. Both these elements appear to have been established on the explicit facts on record. The learned Sub-Magistrate observed: “Hence the owner of R.S. No. 240 has the right to irrigate through the detailed Kanni between R.S. Nos. 240 and 241/1.” That Kanni is, admittedly, the channel which was obstructed. The learned District Magistrate observed: “The testimony of the complainant, his witnesses and that of D.W. 1, discloses that the water from the aforesaid channel was being vised for irrigating the 67 cents of land in R.S. No. 240, belonging to the complainant’s principal.” As regards the alleged obstruction, the facts were never in dispute. Under those circumstances, it seems to be evident and undeniable that the complainant has a legal right to take water in the channel, for, that is the effect of the testimony that has been accepted by both the Courts. Under those circumstances, it seems to be evident and undeniable that the complainant has a legal right to take water in the channel, for, that is the effect of the testimony that has been accepted by both the Courts. Hence, the learned District Magistrate was in error in observing that the evidence did not disclose that the complainant had the legal right to use the water in the channel blocked by the respondent. A legal right of this character is a question of fact, which has to be proved like any other fact by the requisite evidence. Since both the Courts do not dispute either the evidence or its effect, the legal right must be held as established in this case. The decision cited by the learned District Magistrate Tun Aung, In re1, has no application, because that was a case where the legal right was not proved. Once this is conceded, and the obstruction is also conceded, the question is really one of drawing the necessary inference. I must here point out that ‘mischief as defined in section 425, Indian Penal Code, relates not merely to intention, but also to knowledge of the likelihood of wrongful loss being caused. It is enough if the accused knew that by blocking this channel through which the complainant (appellant) had a right to take water for his own land, wrongful loss would be caused to the complainant. Once this is established, the co-existence of a civil remedy really does not make any difference. As the law seems to have been misapplied to the facts of this case, I allow the appeal and convict the respondent under section 430, Indian Penal Code. Taking all the circumstances into account, and as a nominal fine appears to be adequate in the interests of justice, the respondent is sentenced to a fine of Rs. 40 or in default to three weeks simple imprisonment. V.S. ----- Appeal allowed and Accused convicted.